@mindrian_os/cli 2.0.0-beta.3 → 2.0.0-beta.31

package/data/flagship-floor-set.json

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+{
+  "_comment": "ENRICH-04 / SWEEP-02 floor denominator, ratified by the navigator per 249-03 Task 2 / the 2026-08-11 read-tier session's AskUserQuestion card. Loaded by scripts/check-flagship-floor.cjs (OVERRIDE_PATH = data/flagship-floor-set.json) which filters scripts/build-brain-census.cjs's live scanMethodologyCommands() output down to this exact name set. A name here must match a frontmatter-scanned framework name EXACTLY (scripts/check-flagship-floor.cjs does overrideNames.has(fw.name), a strict set membership check, case-sensitive) or the framework silently drops out of the enumerated floor set rather than failing loud -- verified this session by re-running scanMethodologyCommands() live and diffing its 28-name output against this file 1:1 (zero mismatches).",
+  "ratified_by": "navigator (AskUserQuestion card, 249-03 read-tier session, ruling 3 of 5: 'Floor denominator RATIFIED: the frontmatter set (28)')",
+  "ratified_at": "2026-08-11",
+  "option_chosen": "option-frontmatter",
+  "source": "scripts/build-brain-census.cjs scanMethodologyCommands() -- 50 kind:methodology commands / 28 distinct frameworks, scanned live 2026-08-11 (same enumeration the census and the floor gate already operate on; this file changes DATA, not code, per the script's own header comment)",
+  "frameworks": [
+    "Jobs to Be Done (JTBD)",
+    "Reverse Salient Analysis",
+    "Six Thinking Hats",
+    "HSI Semantic Surprise Analysis Assistant",
+    "PWS Triple Validation Compass",
+    "S-Curve Analysis",
+    "Adoption-Capacity Theory",
+    "PWS Value Proposition",
+    "Root Cause Analysis",
+    "Scenario Planning",
+    "Systems Thinking",
+    "The Pyramid Principle",
+    "Ackoff Pyramid",
+    "Adaptive Leadership",
+    "Beautiful Question Framework",
+    "Domain Selection",
+    "Dominant Design",
+    "Four Lenses of Innovation",
+    "Futures Wheel",
+    "Hypothesis-Driven Problem Solving",
+    "Knowns and Unknowns Matrix Framework",
+    "Lean Canvas",
+    "MECE (Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive)",
+    "Mullins Model",
+    "PEST Analysis",
+    "Problem Definition Transformation Framework",
+    "Red Teaming",
+    "Usher's Model of Cumulative Synthesis"
+  ]
+}

package/data/framework-names.json

@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
+{
+  "snapshot_note": "FEEDS_INTO-linked :Framework names from the Brain (read-only build-time query). Refresh with: node scripts/build-command-registry.cjs --refresh-names",
+  "snapshot_date": "2026-05-12",
+  "framework_names": [
+    "ABET Accreditation Outcomes",
+    "Adaptive Leadership",
+    "Algorithmic Generation of Reverse Salient Solutions",
+    "Authentic Leadership",
+    "Beautiful Question Framework",
+    "Beautiful Questions Bias Detection",
+    "Black Hat Analysis",
+    "BONO Framework",
+    "BONO-Innovation Framework",
+    "Building an 'opposite plan' or 'anti-plan' to challenge current plan assumptions.",
+    "Causal Loop Diagrams",
+    "Changing Terms of Competition",
+    "Communication for Leaders",
+    "Conflict Resolution Framework",
+    "Cynefin Framework",
+    "Cynefin-Informed Sequential Innovation Discovery",
+    "Cynefin-Informed Sequential Innovation Discovery with Beautiful Question Pedagogy",
+    "Define the Focal Component (Level 1)",
+    "Design Thinking",
+    "Distributed Leadership",
+    "Domain Selection",
+    "Emotional Intelligence in Leadership",
+    "Engineering Ethics in Leadership",
+    "ESG Due Diligence Framework",
+    "ESG Materiality Assessment",
+    "Falsifiability",
+    "Financial Due Diligence Framework",
+    "First Who Then What",
+    "Five Practices of Effective Executives",
+    "Four Lenses of Innovation",
+    "Four-Box Business Model Framework",
+    "Green Hat Analysis",
+    "Hedgehog Concept",
+    "Hierarchy Mapping",
+    "High-Performing Teams",
+    "HSI Semantic Surprise Analysis Assistant",
+    "Hypothesis-Driven Problem Solving",
+    "IP Due Diligence Framework",
+    "Jobs to Be Done (JTBD)",
+    "Jobs-to-be-Done for Business Models",
+    "JTBD",
+    "Knowns and Unknowns Matrix Framework",
+    "Lean Canvas",
+    "Legal Due Diligence Framework",
+    "Level 5 Leadership",
+    "Logic Trees (Issue, Hypothesis, Decision)",
+    "MAP THE HIERARCHY",
+    "MECE (Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive)",
+    "Neo4j-Powered Pyramid Logic Assessment Framework",
+    "Opportunity Recognition as Pattern Recognition",
+    "Opposite Plan",
+    "Oracle Foresight Engine",
+    "Problem Definition Transformation Framework",
+    "Problem Exploration Framework",
+    "Problem exploration framework (Problem/Opportunity, Larger System, Goal, Map Hierarchy)",
+    "Problem-solving framework (What problem/opportunity, What about the larger system, What's your goal)",
+    "Process Mapping",
+    "Process Mapping for Innovation",
+    "Psychological Safety",
+    "PWS",
+    "PWS (Problems Worth Solving)",
+    "PWS Applied Innovation Workshop Program",
+    "PWS Framework (Problem/Opportunity, Larger System, Goal, Map Hierarchy)",
+    "PWS Methodology",
+    "PWS Triple Validation Compass",
+    "PWS Value Proposition",
+    "PWS-Bias Devil's Advocate Agent",
+    "Red Teaming",
+    "Resulting",
+    "Reverse Salient Analysis",
+    "Reverse Salients identification",
+    "Root Cause Analysis",
+    "S-Curve Analysis",
+    "Safe fail culture",
+    "Safe Fail Culture",
+    "Scenario Analysis Framework",
+    "Scenario Planning",
+    "Servant Leadership",
+    "Seven Da Vincian Principles",
+    "Situational Leadership",
+    "Six Thinking Hats",
+    "Stock and Flow Diagrams",
+    "Stockdale Paradox",
+    "Strategic Decision Making for Leaders",
+    "Strategic Inflection Point",
+    "Sustaining vs Disruptive Innovation",
+    "Systems Leadership",
+    "Systems lens",
+    "Systems Thinking",
+    "The Braintrust",
+    "The Flywheel",
+    "The Golden Circle",
+    "The Pyramid Principle",
+    "Theory of Change",
+    "Tools vs Platforms Innovation",
+    "Transformational Leadership",
+    "Trending to the Absurd",
+    "TTA",
+    "Tuckman Team Stages",
+    "User Journey Mapping",
+    "Usher's Model of Cumulative Synthesis",
+    "Well-Defined Problem Framework",
+    "White Hat Analysis",
+    "Wicked Problem Detection Framework",
+    "Yellow Hat Analysis"
+  ],
+  "curated_extras_note": "Legitimate :Framework node names that exist in the Brain but are not yet FEEDS_INTO-linked (brain-cleanup adds those edges over time). Hand-curated -- NOT junk nodes. The allowlist the registry validates against is framework_names UNION curated_extras. Verified live 2026-05-12 via lib/core/brain-client.cjs that each name resolves to a real :Framework node.",
+  "curated_extras": [
+    "Adoption-Capacity Theory",
+    "Self-Selling Loop",
+    "Ackoff Pyramid",
+    "Dominant Design",
+    "Futures Wheel",
+    "Mullins Model",
+    "PEST Analysis"
+  ]
+}

package/data/grant-rubric-fixtures/early-stage-pre-seed.json

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+{
+  "id": "early-stage-pre-seed",
+  "name_en": "Early-Stage Companies (Pre-Seed)",
+  "name_he": "",
+  "stage": "Pre-Seed",
+  "eligibility": "Companies raised <= NIS 1.5M, income <= NIS 300K",
+  "purpose": "Support early development",
+  "funding_pct": "60% of investment round",
+  "funding_cap": "NIS 1.5M",
+  "duration": "Multi-year",
+  "status": "stub",
+  "criteria": [],
+  "_provenance": {
+    "sources": ["Notion 'IIA Grants' inline database row, fetched via Notion MCP query-data-sources"],
+    "note": "Eligibility/funding fields are real. Criteria rubric not yet built -- Tnufa (see tnufa.json) is the reviewed reference implementation; extend this fixture the same way when this program is next in scope. Distinct from 'tnufa' (also Pre-Seed) -- this is the IIA's separate Early-Stage Pre-Seed equity-matching track, Tnufa is the ideation/grant track.",
+    "session_date": "2026-08-05"
+  }
+}

package/data/grant-rubric-fixtures/early-stage-round-a.json

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+{
+  "id": "early-stage-round-a",
+  "name_en": "Early-Stage Companies (Round A)",
+  "name_he": "",
+  "stage": "Round A",
+  "eligibility": "Companies raised <= NIS 50M, income <= NIS 30M",
+  "purpose": "Support scaling and growth",
+  "funding_pct": "30% of investment round",
+  "funding_cap": "NIS 15M",
+  "duration": "Multi-year",
+  "status": "stub",
+  "criteria": [],
+  "_provenance": {
+    "sources": ["Notion 'IIA Grants' inline database row, fetched via Notion MCP query-data-sources"],
+    "note": "Eligibility/funding fields are real. Criteria rubric not yet built -- Tnufa (see tnufa.json) is the reviewed reference implementation; extend this fixture the same way when this program is next in scope.",
+    "session_date": "2026-08-05"
+  }
+}

package/data/grant-rubric-fixtures/early-stage-seed.json

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+{
+  "id": "early-stage-seed",
+  "name_en": "Early-Stage Companies (Seed)",
+  "name_he": "",
+  "stage": "Seed",
+  "eligibility": "Companies raised <= NIS 7.5M, income <= NIS 3M",
+  "purpose": "Support product development",
+  "funding_pct": "50% of investment round",
+  "funding_cap": "NIS 5M",
+  "duration": "Multi-year",
+  "status": "stub",
+  "criteria": [],
+  "_provenance": {
+    "sources": ["Notion 'IIA Grants' inline database row, fetched via Notion MCP query-data-sources"],
+    "note": "Eligibility/funding fields are real. Criteria rubric not yet built -- Tnufa (see tnufa.json) is the reviewed reference implementation; extend this fixture the same way when this program is next in scope.",
+    "session_date": "2026-08-05"
+  }
+}

package/data/grant-rubric-fixtures/hybrid-seed-incentive.json

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+{
+  "id": "hybrid-seed-incentive",
+  "name_en": "Hybrid Seed Incentive",
+  "name_he": "",
+  "stage": "Seed",
+  "eligibility": "Startups in sectors with limited private funding",
+  "purpose": "Encourage private investment in seed-stage startups",
+  "funding_pct": "up to 40% of fundraising target",
+  "funding_cap": "NIS 3.5M",
+  "duration": "up to 3 years",
+  "status": "stub",
+  "criteria": [],
+  "_provenance": {
+    "sources": ["Notion 'IIA Grants' inline database row, fetched via Notion MCP query-data-sources"],
+    "note": "Eligibility/funding fields are real. Criteria rubric not yet built -- Tnufa (see tnufa.json) is the reviewed reference implementation; extend this fixture the same way when this program is next in scope.",
+    "session_date": "2026-08-05"
+  }
+}

package/data/grant-rubric-fixtures/rd-fund.json

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+{
+  "id": "rd-fund",
+  "name_en": "R&D Fund",
+  "name_he": "",
+  "stage": "All stages",
+  "eligibility": "Israeli companies across all sectors",
+  "purpose": "Support R&D activities",
+  "funding_pct": "20-50% of approved budget",
+  "funding_cap": "NIS 15M annually",
+  "duration": "Ongoing",
+  "status": "stub",
+  "criteria": [],
+  "_provenance": {
+    "sources": ["Notion 'IIA Grants' inline database row, fetched via Notion MCP query-data-sources"],
+    "note": "Eligibility/funding fields are real. Criteria rubric not yet built -- Tnufa (see tnufa.json) is the reviewed reference implementation; extend this fixture the same way when this program is next in scope.",
+    "session_date": "2026-08-05"
+  }
+}

package/data/grant-rubric-fixtures/regional-innovation-incubators.json

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+{
+  "id": "regional-innovation-incubators",
+  "name_en": "Regional Innovation Incubators",
+  "name_he": "",
+  "stage": "All stages",
+  "eligibility": "Startups in designated incubators",
+  "purpose": "Stimulate tech industry in periphery",
+  "funding_pct": "n/a (fixed annual envelope)",
+  "funding_cap": "NIS 1.05M annually per startup",
+  "duration": "5-8 years",
+  "status": "stub",
+  "criteria": [],
+  "_provenance": {
+    "sources": ["Notion 'IIA Grants' inline database row, fetched via Notion MCP query-data-sources"],
+    "note": "Eligibility/funding fields are real. Criteria rubric not yet built -- Tnufa (see tnufa.json) is the reviewed reference implementation; extend this fixture the same way when this program is next in scope.",
+    "session_date": "2026-08-05"
+  }
+}

package/data/grant-rubric-fixtures/technology-incubators.json

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+{
+  "id": "technology-incubators",
+  "name_en": "Technology Incubators",
+  "name_he": "",
+  "stage": "Seed/Early",
+  "eligibility": "Innovative startups in incubator program",
+  "purpose": "Support deep-tech startups",
+  "funding_pct": "n/a (fixed multi-year envelope)",
+  "funding_cap": "NIS 40M over 5 years",
+  "duration": "5 years (extendable)",
+  "status": "stub",
+  "criteria": [],
+  "_provenance": {
+    "sources": ["Notion 'IIA Grants' inline database row, fetched via Notion MCP query-data-sources"],
+    "note": "Eligibility/funding fields are real. Criteria rubric not yet built -- Tnufa (see tnufa.json) is the reviewed reference implementation; extend this fixture the same way when this program is next in scope.",
+    "session_date": "2026-08-05"
+  }
+}

package/data/grant-rubric-fixtures/tnufa.json

@@ -0,0 +1,167 @@
+{
+  "id": "tnufa",
+  "name_en": "Tnufa (Ideation)",
+  "name_he": "תנופה",
+  "stage": "Pre-Seed",
+  "eligibility": "Fledgling entrepreneurs",
+  "purpose": "Support initial R&D and POC",
+  "funding_pct": "up to 85% of approved project expenses",
+  "funding_cap": "NIS 200,000",
+  "duration": "12 months",
+  "status": "reviewed",
+  "criteria": [
+    {
+      "id": "eligibility_applicant",
+      "aspect": "Who can apply",
+      "details": "Israeli individuals at the idea/concept stage (pre-incorporation is fine) or early-stage, pre-revenue startups with little to no external funding. Small or single-founder teams are explicitly accommodated -- team capability is still evaluated, but limited team size alone is not disqualifying.",
+      "common_mistake": "Assuming any founder or team stage qualifies. Tnufa targets the earliest, pre-revenue, often pre-incorporation stage specifically -- a company already generating revenue or with a formal track record reads as too late-stage.",
+      "category": "eligibility",
+      "room_section": "team-execution"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "eligibility_sector",
+      "aspect": "Which sectors are eligible",
+      "details": "Broad eligibility across IT/software/cyber, healthcare and biotech, cleantech, agritech, advanced manufacturing, and defense/security tech, with a preference for disruptive, deep-tech innovation.",
+      "common_mistake": "Believing only flashy 'high-tech' software projects get approved. This is a named misconception in the source material -- deep-tech, medical devices, agri-tech and other sectors are explicitly welcome.",
+      "category": "eligibility",
+      "room_section": "problem-definition"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "eligibility_project_type",
+      "aspect": "What the grant actually funds",
+      "details": "Prototype development, technological feasibility studies, IP protection costs (patent filings), and early market validation -- but the market validation must be directly tied to proving the technology's viability, not a general go-to-market plan.",
+      "common_mistake": "Padding the budget with general business expenses (office rent, general salaries, broad business-strategy consulting) or market work that is not tied to validating the technology itself -- Tnufa does not fund either.",
+      "category": "eligibility",
+      "room_section": "solution-design"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "restrictions_exclusions",
+      "aspect": "Who is explicitly excluded",
+      "details": "Revenue-generating companies, projects that already secured substantial private or public funding, non-technological / pure business-model projects, and duplicate submissions of the same project across multiple Israel Innovation Authority tracks.",
+      "common_mistake": "Applying while already generating meaningful revenue or holding substantial outside funding, or submitting the same project to more than one IIA track at once.",
+      "category": "eligibility",
+      "room_section": "business-model"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "funding_terms",
+      "aspect": "The real funding math",
+      "details": "Up to 85% of approved project expenses, capped at roughly NIS 200,000 per project per year, over a 12-month program. Non-dilutive -- no equity changes hands.",
+      "common_mistake": "The source FAQ contradicts itself here (one entry says 15-25% matching, another says a 50/50 match). The IIA Grants table resolves it: an 85%-of-costs grant implies roughly 15% matching, not 50/50 -- the 50/50 figure is stray residue from how the source doc was originally generated and should not be used.",
+      "category": "budget",
+      "room_section": "financial-model"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "suitability_self_check",
+      "aspect": "Is Tnufa actually the right program",
+      "details": "Best fit when: the project is at the earliest development stage, the funding need is primarily technical R&D (not operating costs), the applicant is prepared for a multi-stage evaluation process, and there is a credible plan for what happens after the 12-month grant (angel, VC, or a later-stage IIA track).",
+      "common_mistake": "Applying when the real need is operational/business funding rather than technical R&D, or having no articulated plan for funding beyond the Tnufa period.",
+      "category": "eligibility",
+      "room_section": "business-model"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "submission_process",
+      "aspect": "How the application is actually submitted",
+      "details": "Submitted online through the Israel Innovation Authority portal with a project description, team information, a work plan, and a budget, all attached and complete at submission.",
+      "common_mistake": "Missing a required document or section at submission -- this alone commonly delays or disqualifies an otherwise strong application at the administrative-review stage.",
+      "category": "process",
+      "room_section": null
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "evaluation_process",
+      "aspect": "How the application gets evaluated",
+      "details": "A staged review: an administrative completeness check first, then a technical and financial assessment by subject-matter experts, then a committee decision.",
+      "common_mistake": "Writing the technological-innovation explanation for a specialist audience only. Reviewers span technical, business, and financial backgrounds, so an explanation that only a deep specialist can follow reads as unclear, not impressive.",
+      "category": "process",
+      "room_section": null
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "project_description_quality",
+      "aspect": "The project description itself",
+      "details": "States the problem clearly, explains how the technology solves it, and is explicit about what is actually novel about the approach versus existing alternatives.",
+      "common_mistake": "A vague description that asserts innovation without naming what specifically is new, or an unclear timeline for what gets built during the grant period.",
+      "category": "market",
+      "room_section": "problem-definition"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "team_section",
+      "aspect": "The team section",
+      "details": "Presents the team's relevant technical and industry expertise, and for a small or single-founder team, explicitly addresses how expertise gaps will be covered (advisors, planned hires, contractors).",
+      "common_mistake": "A small team with no stated plan for covering an obvious expertise gap (e.g. a deep-tech project with no technical co-founder and no named advisor).",
+      "category": "eligibility",
+      "room_section": "team-execution"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "work_plan_milestones",
+      "aspect": "The work plan",
+      "details": "A milestone-based plan across the 12-month period with concrete deliverables (a working prototype, a completed feasibility test, a technical validation result).",
+      "common_mistake": "Milestones stated too vaguely to be checked against later, or a timeline that is not realistic for a 12-month, R&D-focused grant.",
+      "category": "process",
+      "room_section": "solution-design"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "budget_planning",
+      "aspect": "The budget",
+      "details": "An itemized, realistic budget tied line-by-line to the work plan, focused on R&D costs (materials, lab or testing time, IP filing fees) rather than general operating costs.",
+      "common_mistake": "A budget built without real research behind it (round-number guessing), or budget lines for costs Tnufa does not fund (office rent, general salaries, generic business consulting).",
+      "category": "budget",
+      "room_section": "financial-model"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "market_validation_scope",
+      "aspect": "Market validation, scoped correctly",
+      "details": "Early market-validation evidence is welcome (surveys, letters of interest, competitor analysis) as long as it is framed as evidence the TECHNOLOGY has real demand, not as a general business plan.",
+      "common_mistake": "Treating the market-validation section as a general go-to-market pitch, or asserting demand without any supporting evidence.",
+      "category": "market",
+      "room_section": "market-analysis"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "legal_ip_registration",
+      "aspect": "Legal entity and IP agreements",
+      "details": "A registered Israeli entity (or documented pre-incorporation individual-applicant status where applicable), with IP-ownership agreements formalized in writing among all founders/team members before applying.",
+      "category": "legal",
+      "common_mistake": "Incomplete company registration, or no written IP-ownership agreement among team members -- a common source of dispute once funding arrives.",
+      "room_section": "legal-ip"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "ip_protection_use_of_funds",
+      "aspect": "Using the grant for IP protection",
+      "details": "Grant funds may legitimately cover patent-filing and other IP-legal costs; the applicant retains IP ownership but must disclose IP developments to the Israel Innovation Authority during the grant period.",
+      "common_mistake": "Not budgeting for IP protection at all, despite it being an explicitly eligible and often underused use of the grant.",
+      "category": "ip",
+      "room_section": "legal-ip"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "matching_funds_proof",
+      "aspect": "Proving the matching contribution",
+      "details": "The applicant must be able to demonstrate the roughly 15% matching contribution (personal funds or another funding source) before final approval and disbursement.",
+      "common_mistake": "No clear, demonstrable source for the matching funds at application time -- a common reason for delay or rejection at the funding-proof stage.",
+      "category": "budget",
+      "room_section": "financial-model"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "reporting_requirements",
+      "aspect": "Reporting once funded",
+      "details": "Periodic technical and financial progress reports against the stated milestones and budget, submitted on the schedule set in the grant agreement.",
+      "common_mistake": "Treating reporting as a formality. Missing or incomplete reports can pause or cancel further fund disbursement.",
+      "category": "reporting",
+      "room_section": null
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "change_management",
+      "aspect": "Changing scope, budget, or team after approval",
+      "details": "Material changes to project scope, budget allocation, or key team members after approval require a formal written request and Israel Innovation Authority approval before proceeding.",
+      "common_mistake": "Making an unapproved change to scope, budget, or a key team member's role after the grant is awarded -- this can trigger penalties or a clawback of funds.",
+      "category": "reporting",
+      "room_section": null
+    }
+  ],
+  "_provenance": {
+    "sources": [
+      "Notion page 'Tnufa grant “how to?”' (PWS Backoffice > Databases > Management > Problem solvers > Library), fetched via Notion MCP",
+      "The page's 'IIA Grants' inline database (8 rows, real eligibility/funding figures)",
+      "Chapter 9 'A Complete Guide to the Tnufa Grant' from the full Notion page export (ZIP), sections 9.1-9.3 -- the primary source for criteria wording, superseding the looser 40-Q&A FAQ where the two disagree"
+    ],
+    "corrected_contradiction": "FAQ Q5 said 15-25% matching; FAQ Q30 said a 50/50 match. The IIA Grants table (85% of costs covered) and Chapter 9 agree with Q5's range, not Q30. Q30's 50/50 figure is treated as stray residue from how the source FAQ was originally generated and is not used in this rubric.",
+    "session_date": "2026-08-05"
+  }
+}

package/data/grant-rubric-schema.json

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+{
+  "_doc": {
+    "purpose": "Phase-quick 260805-tnufa-graphrag-grant-grader: the grant-program rubric fixture contract. One JSON Schema, N per-program fixture files under data/grant-rubric-fixtures/*.json -- mirrors the data/hitl-stages-schema.json + data/hitl-stages-fixtures/*.json shape (Canon Part 7 reuse-before-build). Adding a new IIA grant program's full criteria later is a new fixture file, never new code.",
+    "canon_part8": "This whole reference pack is real domain/product data (Israel Innovation Authority grant specifics), NOT generic PWS methodology. It ships LOCAL, bundled with the plugin install, and is NEVER pushed to the shared Brain -- confirmed empirically this session when a brain_search for Tnufa content was blocked by the Part 8 egress guard as out of scope for the generic-methodology graph.",
+    "source": "Notion 'Tnufa grant how-to?' page (PWS Backoffice > Databases > Management > Problem solvers > Library) + its 'IIA Grants' database + Chapter 9 ('A Complete Guide to the Tnufa Grant') from the full page export. See references/opportunities/tnufa-rubric.md for the full provenance and the matching-fund contradiction-resolution note.",
+    "default_on_miss": "reject (fail closed): a fixture missing a required field, or a criterion with an unknown category, is a hard error at load time, not a silent pass."
+  },
+  "record_contract": {
+    "id": "<slug: e.g. 'tnufa'>",
+    "name_en": "<English program name, e.g. 'Tnufa (Ideation)'>",
+    "name_he": "<Hebrew program name (מסלול), when known -- empty string if not yet captured>",
+    "stage": "<one of: Pre-Seed | Seed | Round A | Seed/Early | All stages>",
+    "eligibility": "<one-line eligibility summary, e.g. 'Fledgling entrepreneurs'>",
+    "purpose": "<one-line purpose summary>",
+    "funding_pct": "<string, e.g. 'up to 85%' -- kept as a string since source values are ranges/qualifiers, not bare numbers>",
+    "funding_cap": "<string, e.g. 'NIS 200,000'>",
+    "duration": "<string, e.g. '12 months'>",
+    "status": "<one of: stub | drafted | reviewed -- the fixture's OWN completeness state, distinct from the IIA program's own lifecycle>",
+    "criteria": [
+      {
+        "id": "<slug, unique within this fixture>",
+        "aspect": "<short name of the rubric dimension>",
+        "details": "<what a strong application does on this dimension>",
+        "common_mistake": "<the named failure mode from source material>",
+        "category": "<one of: eligibility | process | budget | legal | reporting | market | ip>",
+        "room_section": "<one of the 8 standard MindrianOS room section slugs, or null for a pure post-award process/reporting item with no room-content equivalent. This is the ONE map used in BOTH directions: room-to-application (room-mode grading + the build roadmap) and application-to-room (decompose a finished application into a room). null is honest, never forced: a criterion like submission_process has no room location to point at and surfaces as a plain checklist item instead.>"
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "category_vocabulary": ["eligibility", "process", "budget", "legal", "reporting", "market", "ip"],
+  "room_section_vocabulary": ["problem-definition", "market-analysis", "solution-design", "business-model", "competitive-analysis", "team-execution", "legal-ip", "financial-model", null],
+  "validation_rule": "A fixture is valid when: id/name_en/stage/eligibility/purpose/funding_pct/funding_cap/duration/status are all non-empty strings; status is a member of {stub, drafted, reviewed}; criteria is an array (possibly empty for a stub fixture); every criteria[] entry has a non-empty id/aspect/details/common_mistake and a category in category_vocabulary; and when a criteria[] entry carries room_section, it is null or a member of room_section_vocabulary (an unknown string is a hard error at load time, not a silent pass)."
+}

package/data/harness-fixtures/converged-room/.context/ROOM.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+---
+directory_type: .context
+icm_layer: 0
+auto_scaffolded: true
+purpose: "Per-session conversational state (last-session, rejection-log, methodology-history, weekly-digest)."
+---
+
+<!-- ICM Layer 0 identity file per Canon decision 15. Every directory in the Data
+     Room has ROOM.md -- no exceptions. This file was auto-scaffolded by Phase 119. -->
+
+# .context
+
+Per-session conversational state (last-session, rejection-log, methodology-history, weekly-digest).

package/data/harness-fixtures/converged-room/.intelligence/ROOM.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+---
+directory_type: .intelligence
+icm_layer: 0
+auto_scaffolded: true
+purpose: "Sentinel-generated alerts and digests (health checks, deadline reports, competitor watch)."
+---
+
+<!-- ICM Layer 0 identity file per Canon decision 15. Every directory in the Data
+     Room has ROOM.md -- no exceptions. This file was auto-scaffolded by Phase 119. -->
+
+# .intelligence
+
+Sentinel-generated alerts and digests (health checks, deadline reports, competitor watch).

package/data/harness-fixtures/converged-room/.snapshots/ROOM.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+---
+directory_type: .snapshots
+icm_layer: 0
+auto_scaffolded: true
+purpose: "Weekly STATE.md copies for drift detection by sentinel-health-check."
+---
+
+<!-- ICM Layer 0 identity file per Canon decision 15. Every directory in the Data
+     Room has ROOM.md -- no exceptions. This file was auto-scaffolded by Phase 119. -->
+
+# .snapshots
+
+Weekly STATE.md copies for drift detection by sentinel-health-check.

package/data/harness-fixtures/converged-room/MINTO.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+# MINTO Pyramid
+
+The Minto Pyramid Principle structures argument top-down: governing thought first, supporting arguments below, evidence at the leaves. This room's MINTO is empty until the first methodology lands content.
+
+<!-- mos:minto-begin -->
+## Governing Thought
+
+*(empty; will be populated when the first /mos:* methodology fires or when Larry synthesizes from the auto-explore finding)*
+
+## Supporting Arguments
+
+- *(empty support 1)*
+- *(empty support 2)*
+- *(empty support 3)*
+<!-- mos:minto-end -->
+
+## How This File Updates
+
+The sentinel-bounded section above is regenerated by `lib/core/feynman` pipelines. Edits between the sentinels are byte-preserved across regeneration; edits OUTSIDE the sentinels are append-safe.